From: EvMick (EvMick@aol.com)
Date: Tue May 26 1998 - 21:53:01 MDT
In a message dated 5/26/98 4:39:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
jdees0@students.uwf.edu writes:
> >
> > > One minor quibble. I think we have fossils of bones. Not the same
> thing.
> >
> > You quibble that we don't really have dinosaur bones?
> >
> >
> > Where is this leading? Do you doubt that dinosaurs really could have
> > existed? Do you doubt that fossils are really the remains of dinosaur
> > bones? What "hypothosis" would you propose instead?
> > --
> It appears that a closet creationist has infiltrated the extropian
> ranks. Next, we'll hear that the world started in 6000 b.c. and that
> God buried fake bones with divinely doctored carbon-14 signitures in
> order to test our faith!
In a previous mssg in response to this I said:
<<<This is beginning to annoy me...>>>
<<<RTFQ...read what I said.. >>>
{more in sadness than in anger}
I apologize for that last...
<sigh> It is a time honored tradition that if a question is asked...or a
message is delivered which is uncomfortable...then ignore the question or the
message and ridicule or attack the one who asked or delivered it. .
Politicians have honed this to a fine art. Witness our current occupent of the
oval office.
Still...it's sad to see such tactics as ridicule, straw men...and name calling
in response to perfectly sincere questions and speculation on this list.
<digging in heels...gonna be a looooooong fight>
First.
Hypotheses:
Given a collection of facts, data, etc. A hypothesis is an attempt to order
that information in such a way that is logical and explanatory.
Theory:...an hypothesis that has survived the test of time.
A theory can not be proved...it can only be disproved. And if inconvient and
contradictory facts, or data become apparent the theory (hypothesis) must be
modified to accomodate the new info......or thrown out and replaced with
something else.
.....
Quibble. A fossile is NOT a bone. It is a replica of a bone. Similar to a
plaster cast. Some things can be determined from a replica...some things
cannot. For example...a plaster replica of a steel beam would tell us very
little about the tensile strength of that beam...merely it's shape.
The question still remains.
Knowing what we know of materials strength as applied to strength to weight
ratio...and using the modern day elephant as an example...is it reasonable to
assume that dinosaurs could reach such tremdous sizes and weights as is
popularly beleived?
I see nothing in that question which presupposes creationism....or any other
ism.
EvMIck
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:08 MST